Just a walk in the park, or is it? : a case study analysis of a Seniors Community Park in Oak Bay, British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major demographic shift is projected to begin in 2011 due to the retirement of those born between 1946 and 1965, or the post-World War II baby boomer generation. Due to this trend, it is pertinent for Canadian communities to concentrate on creating ‘senior-friendly’ spaces, infrastructure and support services. One such initiative throughout British Columbia is the establishment of 18 designated Senior Community Parks (SCPs) across the province in 2008. This case-study research project, taking place in Oak Bay, British Columbia on the grounds of the Henderson Recreation Centre (HRC), examines park visitation levels, types of utilization and effectiveness of park accessibility, and infrastructure. A mixed methods approach was employed combining seven park observations, sixty-five quantitative questionnaires completed by patrons of the Henderson Recreation Centre, and 16 qualitative interviews with community-dwelling older adults between the ages of sixty-one and eighty and with six staff members of the HRC. Results indicate steady but low park visitation amounts as only 55 total people were seen during observations. Almost all persons were observed walking or jogging and only one person was seen using the equipment within the park. Quantitative data revealed under-utilization of the park and a wide discrepancy between the number persons aware of the SCP (90.8%) and those that visit more than once a month (38.5%). Qualitative interviews uncovered aspects of the park favored by participants (chip trail, park upkeep, exercise opportunities) and those that require improvement (exercise equipment, awareness). Two infrastructural shortcomings were identified; signage and equipment stations. Based on results, the ineffectiveness of the outdoor exercise equipment and awareness of the SCP need to be investigated further.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".